Archive for November, 2010

Billionaire Troubletown

28 November 2010

Troubletown: This Week\’s Billionaire Troubletown.

Great cartoon.

Part of me–the evil part–fantasizes about a cartoon mimicking those sites set up by some anti-abortionists. I can visualize it–photographs of fat cat CEOs, hedge fund managers, and mega-bankers, the photographs Photoshopped to show them in crosshairs. The less evil part of me would be happy with just mug shots and striped outfits with them holding ID cards with their yearly income.

I’m not that sort, of course, but it frustrates me when I read comments such as this one that appeared in the Atlanta Journal Constitution:

How are the rich responsible for destroying the economy? The economy was destroyed by people buying houses they could not afford and then not paying their mortgage.

Obviously, the plutocrats have done a fine job of convincing a good many to blame the victim.

Back to fantasizing about pitchforks and tar.

Cassandra

Advertisements

Corn: It’s the Food Supply, Stupid

28 November 2010

Al Gore finally concluded ethanol isn’t a good idea and conservative sources are gloating, for example “Al Gore’s Ethanol Epiphany: He Concedes the Industry He Promoted Serves No Useful Purpose.” The problem here is that while ethanol isn’t a good idea, both Gore and many of his critics typically fail to mention one extremely significant reason the current American ethanol process is folly: CORN IS FOOD.

In fact, it’s in so many American food products, I won’t even try to list them. Just read some labels at the grocery store if you don’t believe how ubiquitous corn is.

As someone who likes to eat on a regular basis, I worry about the air, the soil, the water, and the weather it takes to produce food and the resources it takes to distribute food. I long ago decided that I’d rather eat corn than drive around with it, but the Gore reversal and the reactions to it did little to convince me that the food supply was on the minds of those in power.

It’s sure on my mind because a number of factors point to lean times–dire times–ahead. How far ahead, I don’t know. Five years? Could be, but I’m not too worried. Ten? Now I’m starting to worry. By 2030 misery, possibly even world-wide misery, looks closer to being a sure thing. By mid-century–oi. Forget corn. Google “commercial fishing 2048” or something like that and find out what a good many project.

The future does not look bright for a number of reasons, among them carbon dioxide emissions that will continue to rise for a thousand years even if we were to stop driving cars and trucks today. However, our fossil fuel use is hardly the problem that worries me most. The rising human population does. Our problem is simple. We all like to eat, and, after eating, a good many of us like to do other things, one of which results in there being too many of us.

Ask any biologist what happens when a population continues to rise. If you don’t already know the answer, I suggest you read William Catton’s 1980 book Overshoot. It’s written for non-scientists and is still the best overview of the future I’ve ever read. When populations overbreed, they then eat themselves out of house and home. Those of us who live in developed countries have been skirting this Malthusian issue for a long time now. Fossil fuel fertilizers and fossil fuel-driven machines have allowed us to produce vast quantities of food and export our surplus to those less able to exploit the planet.

Kinda looks like that’s coming to an end because of increasing confluences of climate, consumption, soil-degradation, and water shortages. What happens if Hundred Year Droughts turn into droughts that come every ten years? We certainly can’t say that Russia’s recent drought was caused by climate change. It’s quite possible it was just a routine, devastating drought, something that happens every fifty or every hundred years or so. But what if it was not? What if climate change models are right and severe droughts become more frequent. We had a nasty drought here in Colorado in 2002.

In 2010, however, the farmers in my locale are rejoicing about the weather. On the 7th of November, an article titled “Crops Yield ‘Once in a Generation’ Payoff” appeared in the Longmont Times-Call. Whether or not they believe climate change is an issue, farmers certainly believe the weather is an issue. And they believe in luck. The article outlined how in 2010 Colorado “[c]rop prices . . . fetched what one expert called ‘once in a generation’ prices.”

“You’re looking at the trifecta: Sugar prices are high; corn prices are high; if you’re a dryland wheat farmer, prices are high,” said Mike Urbano-wicz with Colorado Commodities, an organization that buys and sells crops from Colorado farmers.

“To me, it’s once in a generation to have all this happen in the same year,” Urbanowicz said.

In June, corn producers were looking at getting in the mid-$3-per-bushel for their 2010 crop.

“Four dollars (per bushel) was a goal; $5 was an absolute dream,” Urbanowicz said. Corn is already a little more than $5 a bushel and may hit as high as $6.50, according to the National Corn Growers Association.

“A month ago, we saw a huge spike, and it just seems to be hanging around,” said Kent Peppler, a fourth-generation farmer near Mead who grows wheat, alfalfa, barley and corn, his biggest crop, on about 500 acres.

Urbanowicz said the spike in corn prices is due to a couple of things: The weak U.S. dollar increased the export of corn, and growing conditions in Colorado this year have been outstanding compared to some other states, such as Illinois and Indiana. [emphasis added]

(For comparison’s sake, Colorado is projected to produce about 171 million bushels of corn this year, while the two states mentioned above combine for about 4 billion bushels between them.)

Wheat prices also spiked because of a severe drought in Russia and the Ukraine, Urbanowicz said.

That comment about the Midwest caught my eye. So what happened in the Corn Belt, in states like Illinois and Indiana? According to MarketWatch “Corn and other grains futures shot up Friday after a U.S. Department of Agriculture report pointed to the tightest supply and demand balance for corn in 14 years.”

The Agriculture Department on Friday forecast a 2010-11 corn crop 3.8% smaller than government expectations just a month ago, as a hot Midwest summer preceded by floods in June takes its toll. . . . Following flooding in June, the Corn Belt suffered from a hot summer and, more importantly, warmer-than-usual nights [emphasis added] that interfered with corn’s ability to pollinate as it normally would, he said.

“Warmer-than-usual nights.” Haven’t computer models suggested that global warming results in warmer nights even more than warmer days? Aren’t warmer nights one reason cited for the world-wide decline in the frog population? (Google keywords: frog decline warmer nights) Learning that corn too was threatened by warmer nights was not welcome news.

But again, all this could just be a routine year. It’s still possible that humans and their toys aren’t behind warmer nights and other shifts. The current food prices could just be routine. But what happens if Russia’s drought hits the United states next year?

That would be bad enough without some other factors–like supply lines. For example, with the recent admission by the International Energy Agency that we reached peak oil in 2006 the food transport factor kicks in. It’s now increasingly likely that we will find a way to continue shipping food from one place to another to avoid mass famine. At least it’s becoming clearer to people like Al Gore that ethanol is a porky boondoggle rather than the key to our fossil fuel problems. I just wish it’d become clearer to more people that a planet with fewer people is the answer to our continued survival.

The bottleneck predicted by so many–by Catton, by E. O. Wilson (Google E. O. Wilson bottleneck), by many–approacheth. In a not too distant future, it’s quite possible that famine will sweep the United States the way it routinely sweeps Africa. Sooner or later, our farming luck will run out.

Cassandra

There Will Be Critical Thinking

23 November 2010

I was tempted to title this post “There Will Be Vivisection” because that’s a fair image for what happens to Clifford Krauss’s New York Times article “There Will Be Fuel,” when energy and environmental writer Sharon Astyk responds in her blog Casaubon’s Book, a name that reveals her literary foundation. (How many people do you know who’ve read Middlemarch, my all-time favorite novel?)

While I recommend clicking over to the originals, I’m going to indulge once again in posting both a full copy of Krauss’s November 16, 2010, article and then a full copy of Astyk’s response because having both at hand helps one to grasp her points as she deftly summarizes, quotes, and carves out chunks of gristle and fat. I consider this fair educational use as an example of summary and analytical response, i.e. Nobody sue me, please!

Read both carefully. There might be a quiz.

“There Will Be Fuel”

[photo and caption omitted]

By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: November 16, 2010

HOUSTON

THREE summers ago, the world’s supertankers were racing across the oceans as fast as they could to deliver oil to markets growing increasingly thirsty for energy. Americans were grumbling about paying as much as $4 a gallon for gasoline, as the price of crude oil leapt to $147 a barrel. Natural gas prices were vaulting too, sending home electricity bills soaring.

A book making the rounds at the time, “Twilight in the Desert,” by Matthew R. Simmons, seemed to sum up the conventional wisdom: the age of cheap, plentiful oil and gas was over. “Sooner or later, the worldwide use of oil must peak,” the book concluded, “because oil, like the other two fossil fuels, coal and natural gas, is nonrenewable.”

But no sooner did the demand-and-supply equation shift out of kilter than it swung back into something more palatable and familiar. Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation.

Meanwhile, another wave of natural gas drilling has taken off in shale rock fields across the United States, and more shale gas drilling is just beginning in Europe and Asia. Add to that an increase in liquefied natural gas export terminals around the world that connected gas, which once had to be flared off, to the world market, and gas prices have plummeted.

Energy experts now predict decades of residential and commercial power at reasonable prices. Simply put, the world of energy has once again been turned upside down.

“Oil and gas will continue to be pillars for global energy supply for decades to come,” said James Burkhard, a managing director of IHS CERA, an energy consulting firm. “The competitiveness of oil and gas and the scale at which they are produced mean that there are no readily available substitutes in either one year or 20 years.”

Some unpleasant though predictable consequences are likely, of course, as the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico this spring demonstrated. Some environmentalists say that gas from shale depends on drilling techniques and chemicals that may jeopardize groundwater supplies, and that a growing dependence on Canadian oil sands is more dangerous for the climate than most conventional oils because mining and processing of the sands require so much energy and a loss of forests.

And while moderately priced oil and gas bring economic relief, they also make renewable sources of energy like wind and solar relatively expensive and less attractive to investors unless governments impose a price on carbon emissions.

“When wind guys talk to each other,” said Michael Skelly, president of Clean Line Energy Partners, a developer of transmission lines for renewable energy, “they say, ‘Damn, what are we going to do about the price of natural gas?’ ”

Oil and gas executives say they provide a necessary energy bridge; that because both oil and gas have a fraction of the carbon-burning intensity of coal, it makes sense to use them until wind, solar, geothermal and the rest become commercially viable.

“We should celebrate the fact that we have enough oil and gas to carry us forward until a new energy technology can take their place,” said Robert N. Ryan Jr., Chevron’s vice president for global exploration.

Mr. Skelly and other renewable energy entrepreneurs counter that without a government policy fixing a price on carbon emissions through a tax or cap and trade, the hydrocarbon bridge could go on and on without end.

So what happened to shift the energy world so drastically the last few years? Is the shift reversible once the economy picks up?

The recession throttled the world’s demand for energy, particularly in the United States and Europe, but that tells only part of the story. Periodic jolts, like the Arab oil embargoes in the 1960s and 1970s, are likely to recur in a world with unpredictable actors like Iran. Access to oil and gas may always be limited by geopolitics, especially in places like the Middle East. Just in the last few days, the decline in the dollar spurred a new spike in oil prices, along with those of other commodities.

Yet, the outlook, based on long-term trends barely visible five years ago, now appears to promise large supplies of oil and gas from multiple new sources for decades into the future.

The same high prices that inspired dire fear in the first place helped to resolve them. High oil and gas prices produced a wave of investment and drilling, and technological innovation has unlocked oceans of new resources. Oil and gas from ocean bottoms, the Arctic and shale rock fields are quickly replacing tired fields in places like Mexico, Alaska and the North Sea.

Much depends, of course, on government policies in the coming decades. The International Energy Agency, the Paris-based organization that advises industrialized countries, projected this month that global energy demand would increase by an astounding 36 percent between 2008 and 2035, assuming the broad policy commitments already announced by governments were exercised. Oil demand is projected to grow to 99 million barrels a day in 2035, from 84 million barrels a day in 2009.

Even in an alternative world where there is a concerted, coordinated effort to reduce future carbon emissions sharply, the International Energy Agency projected oil demand would peak at 88 million barrels a day around 2020, then decline to 81 million barrels a day in 2035 — just fractionally less than today’s consumption. Natural gas use, meanwhile, would increase by 15 percent from current levels by 2035. In contrast, global coal use would dip a bit, while nuclear power and renewable forms of energy would grow considerably.

[photo and caption omitted]

No matter what finally plays out, energy experts expect there will be plenty, perhaps even an abundance, of oil and gas. IHS CERA, which monitors oil and gas fields around the world, projects that productive capacity for liquid fuels could rise to 112 million barrels a day in 2030 (including 2.75 million barrels in biofuels), from 92.6 million barrels a day this year.

“The estimates for how much oil there is in the world continue to increase,” said William M. Colton, Exxon Mobil’s vice president for corporate strategic planning. “There’s enough oil to supply the world’s needs as far as anyone can see.”

More promising still is that the growing oil production comes from a variety of sources — making the world less vulnerable to a price war with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries or an outbreak of violence in a major producing country like Nigeria. As IHS CERA and other oil analysts see it, new oil is going to come from both conventional and unconventional sources — from anticipated expansions of fields in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and from a continued expansion of deepwater drilling off Africa and Brazil, in the Gulf of Mexico and across the Arctic, where hopes are high in the oil world, although little exploration has yet been done.

The vast oil sands fields in western Canada, deemed uneconomical by many oil companies as few as 15 years ago, are now as important to global supply growth as the continuing expansions of fields in Saudi Arabia, the current No. 1 producer.

“We’ve got a wealth of opportunities to address around the world,” said Mr. Ryan, Chevron’s vice president. “We have quite a few deepwater settings all over the world, some of them very new, like the Black Sea. There are Arctic settings. We have efforts under way re-exploring Nigeria, Angola, Australia. The easy stuff has been found, that’s true, but in the end, we still have many basins in the world to explore or to re-explore.”

The biggest wild card, and a potential game-changer, is Iraq, which now produces a modest 2.5 million barrels a day. With Saddam Hussein out of the picture, international oil companies have rushed there. If all the projects they have agreed to develop pan out, and if Iraq can contain its political turbulence enough to pump, production could mushroom to 12 million barrels a day by the end of the decade — well above what Saudi Arabia produces today.

But even if Iraq’s production does not rise to this level, IHS CERA predicts “it will eventually join Saudi Arabia and Russia as one of the largest global producers, with increasing influence on OPEC and world oil markets.”

New supplies are only part of the equation. Technological innovation has made the use of oil and gas more efficient, too, helping to keep rising demand for energy at least partly in check. Cars, buildings and appliances are becoming less wasteful, and biofuels are increasingly supplementing oil products and extending their reach.

Even in China, India and the rest of the developing world, where the demands of a growing middle class probably represent the world’s biggest energy challenge, there are positive signs.

China, for instance, is making a big push to reduce energy subsidies for exports like steel and aluminum. Countries around the developing world are severely cutting gasoline subsidies, forcing consumers of new cars to contain their exuberance. Cars that run on compressed natural gas are replacing more carbon-intensive gasoline-driven vehicles across Latin America and Asia. Natural gas sales should soar in Europe and the United States if the electric car takes off in the next couple of decades, as utilities are expected to phase out coal-burning plants in favor of gas.

Not surprisingly, the back-to-the-future world of oil and gas begins in the United States, still the biggest economy and the driver of energy markets since World War II.

For the last two decades, the United States has produced less oil each year and been increasingly dependent on imports than the year before. As recently as a decade ago, most experts predicted that the country had only 25 years of gas reserves, and that it would need to import at least half of its needs in the future.

Today the country has reversed both trends, chiefly because of new drilling techniques that have opened world-class oil and gas resources. In 2009, domestic production began to reverse its annual decline for the first time since 1991. The Energy Department expects domestic supplies to grow through 2035, absent a significant decline in oil prices.

Largely shut out of the Middle East, international companies including BP and Shell began seriously looking at the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico in the 1990s. Exploration and drilling below 10,000 feet of water and through miles of hard rock, thick salt and tightly packed sands required the development of supercomputers and three-dimensional imaging and equipment that could withstand the heat and pressures common at such depths, as well as submarine robots to make repairs.

After only a decade of serious deepwater drilling, the gulf is undergoing a drilling renaissance. Despite a decline in shallow-water production, gulf oil production has increased by more than 12 percent since 2000, to 1.7 million barrels a day, comparable to Libya’s output. Those increases are bound to slow over the next year or two as the federal government recalibrates regulations after the BP accident, but oil executives say they are committed to continue the production boom.

“We’ll see the industry ramp back up, go back to work and maybe in a year or year and a half, we’ll be back in a normal pace,” Marvin E. Odum, president of Shell Oil, a major Gulf producer, predicted.

Similar advances have made drilling gas and oil from shale possible on a large scale for the first time. Advances in so-called horizontal drilling allow well drillers to steer and carve through hard shale to expose more and hard-to-reach rock, and it also makes possible drilling under city neighborhoods, as in Fort Worth, which happens to sit atop a large gas field.

Horizontal drilling and advanced fracturing techniques across wide swaths of Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas over the last few years have produced so much natural gas that experts now say the United States has reserves for more than 100 years. That means the country is not only going to have plenty of gas, but also is likely to become an exporter over the next decade.

The American gas glut has set off a glut around the world, because the building spree in recent years of Middle Eastern and Asian liquefied natural gas terminals was originally intended to send much of their gas to the United States.

“The technology producing these resources has absolutely made the difference,” Mr. Odum said. “It’s the same with the Arctic, with the shale oil, all over the world. Technology is the key.”

Shale drilling is also beginning to produce significant amounts of oil in the United States. The Bakken shale field centered in North Dakota has become the fastest-growing major oil field in the United States, with production rocketing to about 350,000 barrels a day, from 100,000 barrels a day a decade ago. In a recent report, the consultancy firm PFC Energy projected production would climb to 450,000 barrels a day by 2013.

Add up the shale, the deepwater drilling and Canadian oil sands, says Edward L. Morse, the head at commodity research at Credit Suisse, and what you get is less dependency on OPEC and hostile countries like Venezuela. Synthetic oil made from Canadian oil sands has become the largest single source of imported oil this year, far more than from any OPEC country.

Mr. Morse said the demand side of the equation also helped. He noted that American demand for gasoline appeared to have peaked in 2007 and could decline by 15 to 20 percent by 2020 because of increasingly efficient cars and a federal mandate requiring that renewable fuels, like ethanol, blended into transportation fuels must increase to 36 billion gallons in 2022, from nine billion gallons in 2008.

“When you add it up,” Mr. Morse noted, “you get something that very closely approximates energy independence.”

Now here’s Sharon Astky’s response, appropriately titled response.

“How Not to Write an Essay on Oil, With Guidance from the New York Times

Category: media • peak oil
Posted on: November 23, 2010 10:42 AM, by Sharon Astyk

I hope my readers will forgive me today for lapsing back into my prior profession rather than my present one as an energy and environmental writer. You see, before I gained fame and fortune writing about our ecological situation, I was a mild-mannered college teacher, whose favorite and most important job was teaching rhetoric to undergraduates.

I am perhaps odd in observing that I thought that teaching writing was the most important thing I did. Most academics believe their primary subject matter is the central portion of their work, but I came to see that the place that I had the greatest impact on students was in teaching them to write, because functionally, the best way to teach people to write well is to teach them to think clearly, or, if they have already mastered that exercise, to clearly express the thought process they used to come to a conclusion.

Teaching students to write and communicate well was thus, extraordinarily rewarding. Students often made enormous and quick progress, once they realized what the mistakes they were making were, why they were making them (ie, the answer is not “you are stupid, or you should already know this) and how to correct them. Almost no other subject was as much fun to teach. Nor were any subjects as important – someone with the ability to think clearly, to reason well and articulate that reason can learn almost anything, and teach it as well. Unfortunately, many people never do get taught how to do this, as we shall see.

The Very Important Paper recently ran an article that might have been tailor made for one of my old classes – it was a perfect illustration of how not to write a persuasive or expository essay. Written by Clifford Krauss and appearing in the New York Times November 17 Energy Supplement, it provides a superb model for the young (or old) writer on what not to do, and in a sense I’m grateful for this illustration. I apologize to my readership then, for digressing into my past profession, and offering a brief lesson on how not to write about peak oil for the interested.

I do get many emails requesting ideas on how to jump into the public discourse on energy and I offer this up to those of my readers who don’t feel comfortable as writers, and would like to contribute something to the public discourse on energy. This should provide you with some basic guidelines for doing so.

The first thing to do is to decide what kind of essay you want to write, and we can see that Krauss has struggled with this, and made a common mistake of inexperienced writers (although he is not one). Krauss has allowed himself to become confused about what his objective is. Generally speaking, newspaper articles are expository – they explain an issue, describe different viewpoints on that issue and offer (if they are well done) analysis. There are exceptions to this model, but this is the general rule.

There is also a place in newspapers for persuasive essays, designed to convince people of someone’s opinion about something. For clarity’s sake, and so that no one mistakes the opinion of the author for actual fact, the newspapers generally classify these all together in the “Editorial” “Opinion” or “Op-Ed,” so that you will not become confused . Again, there are a few exceptions to this rule, but this is the general principle.

Oddly, Krauss has written a persuasive essay, although it is not placed on the Op-Ed pages. You can tell this by his assertion “there will be fuel.” This is a prediction for the future, and a controversial one that depends on a host of complicated factors. In the article, Krauss attempts to find supporting evidence for his thesis, while not adequately presenting opposing points – that is, he takes a side on this issue. Thus, the article is fundamentally persuasive, but perhaps because it is placed in a spot that generally covers expository material, and Krauss blurs the lines between the two somewhat – and it is perhaps surprising that an op-ed piece would appear as though it were a piece of objective journalism..

Blurring genres happens now and again, and there are two reasons it most often occurs. The first is that the writer doesn’t have a strong sense of their own objectives, and hasn’t clarified exactly what they are doing. This is common in students of writing who have never fully grasped the range of kinds of writing out there, and how they differ from one another.

The other possibility is that one is being intentionally or accidentally obfuscatory, that is, one is attempting to confuse readers, rather than offer clear exposition of an idea. This may be because the author is themselves confused and unable to articulate their thoughts clearly or it may be because the author is being disingenuous, which is a polite and academically acceptable way to say they are lying.

Intentional obfuscation is a common strategy used by people who have been caught out in an obvious error or lie – consider the reaction of someone who gets called on their racist statement or caught sleeping with someone they shouldn’t be. Very slightly more benignly, intentional obfuscation is used by those attempting to support an idea that is not, in fact, supportable by the facts. Blurring distinctions, confusing and distracting people with irrelevancies, and changing the terms of the debate then becomes a useful strategy for the person attempting to support a weak argument or get people to look over there and forget they’ve been lying. It would be inappropriate of me to speculate what the issue is for Krauss – it is generally kindest to assume the best of one’s interlocutors when writing, so we will assume the best here.

If obfuscation is sometimes useful, I don’t recommend that writers use it. Instead, I suggest it is far better to take the time to understand what you are saying and why, and also to avoid lying or choosing weak theses. The obfuscatory essay is not, for some reason, one of the classic styles, and the primary reason for that is that it is dull to read and draws attention not to your ideas, but to the weaknesses in them.

Let’s take a look, now, at Krauss’s thesis statement – you’ve probably been told a few hundred times that having a good and clear thesis statement is important, and that’s true. What you may not have been told is that it is also important to have a supportable thesis statement. In fact, many young writers feel that the best way to write a strong persuasive piece is to admit no doubt, and to take extreme positions as strongly as possible, and indeed, many parts of our culture, particularly our political process support this idea.

I would suggest, however, that in writing for the general public, it is generally wiser to choose a thesis that you can actually support with evidence. In politics, of course, one does not support ideas generally with facts, but with posturing and noise. Writing for a newspaper, however, should not be supported in such a way, but with clear and accurate details. Some students have asked me whether they felt that their argument was weakened when they made more moderate claims – my own feeling is that if someone can dismantle your claims entirely, you will look far weaker than if you have stuck to what the evidence can support. If truthful claims aren’t exciting enough for you, I recommend either you stay away from writing or take up fiction.

Krauss has gone ahead and made a thesis statement that is quite extreme – “There will be fuel” is a long term prediction, dependent on a lot of variables, and it becomes evident as we read that Krauss is struggling to support his analysis. Indeed, generally speaking for most people to make this kind of assertion would be entering the era of speculative fiction, rather than newspaper journalism, because it requires a set of assumptions that themselves are open to question. It is not the case that one should never make predictions, but when there are a high number of variables and you are not an expert, it is difficult territory, and Krauss gets in trouble almost immediately:

A book making the rounds at the time, “Twilight in the Desert,” by Matthew R. Simmons, seemed to sum up the conventional wisdom: the age of cheap, plentiful oil and gas was over. “Sooner or later, the worldwide use of oil must peak,” the book concluded, “because oil, like the other two fossil fuels, coal and natural gas, is nonrenewable.”

But no sooner did the demand-and-supply equation shift out of kilter than it swung back into something more palatable and familiar. Just as it seemed that the world was running on fumes, giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa, and Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia. In addition, the United States has increased domestic oil production for the first time in a generation.

Consider the way the two paragraphs work together in parallel structure. First, Krauss sets up the old, and (he claims) wrong way of thinking, articulated by Matthew Simmons, that oil, coal, and natural gas are finite and non-renewable. He then responds to this with a paragraph that leads with a “But…” and the implication is that he is offering evidence that this old thinking is incorrect. The difficulty with this, of course, is that it isn’t. There is actually no dispute, barring a few complete nuts who believe in abiotic oil (learning to recognize and ignore nuts is an important part of critical thinking), that oil, coal and natural gas *are* all non-renewable. But Krauss allows his “but” to create the impression that this is wrong.

He then throws together a collection of barely related facts. No sooner had we come to think this, he argues then we did a bunch of things that changed the oil landscape entirely – and Krauss works very hard (or has an astonishing number of coincidental errors) to make us think that these things add up to a logical response to the “old thinking” he set before, and provide evidence that we should all be thinking the “new” way.

First of all, “giant oil fields were discovered off the coasts of Brazil and Africa” – well, this is true, but they weren’t discovered *after* 2008, but before – we already knew about them before oil rose to $147 barrel. Moreover, we still don’t know how large the production from these fields will be – estimates have ranged from extremely high to comparatively low impact. The implication is that these discoveries had something significant to do with the change – but in fact, the world is still discovering one barrel of oil for every four we use, even taking these “giant” fields into account.

Next, “Canadian oil sands projects expanded so fast, they now provide North America with more oil than Saudi Arabia” – this one is particularly silly, because Canadian imports were matched by declining Saudi imports, and while Canadian production did expand, we traded more expensive oil for cheaper oil – tar sands production is expensive, Saudi oil production is comparatively cheap. This is rather like saying “the production of Mercedes expanded so fast that no one needed to buy Fords” – another way of framing it would be “car prices went up a lot.”

This running together of several unrelated ideas with words that sort of imply bigger things than the facts do (the implication to an uncareful reader, for example, is that Canada is producing more oil than Saudi Arabia, obviously wrong) is a technique of obfuscation – a writer with plenty of supporting facts can take the time to treat each idea honestly and carefully, but a writer with a weak case often runs weak or unrelated ideas together to make their case seem stronger. Note, for example, that Krauss doesn’t say how much the US has increased its oil production by (it isn’t impressive, compared to consumption).

More on that last in a minute, but the general emphasis is to suggest that combination of real changes in the oil situation occurred in 2008, and changed the situation. But this is, in fact, not the case. As we’ve noted, those fields in Brazil and Africa haven’t come online yet, and weren’t enough to change the general trend that we’re consuming a lot more oil than we’ve discovered. The change in US production was a small thing, the Canadian oil sands do matter, but they mostly offset declines in other imports. In reality, the oil industry didn’t change radically in 2008 – what happened was that prices spiked, we entered a recession and prices fell. But that’s not a very interesting story, for all that it is inconveniently true.

I won’t bore you all by going through the rest of the article line by line, as I have these two paragraphs – you can probably do it yourself. Look always for places where the author attempts to make implications he simply can’t support. Ask yourself “who are “energy experts” and “how much is an ‘increase'” whenever you encounter that terminology. The key to good analysis is asking these kinds of questions. I will however point out a few particularly egregious difficulties, lest you make these errors yourselves.

The first energy expert cited in the article is a gentleman from an organization called “CERA” which is described as an “energy consulting firm.” Note that this gentleman comes from the for-profit sector, and you might want to Google CERA. What you’ll find is that CERA makes a great deal of its money by arguing that “peak oil theory is garbage.” This is a reiteration of CERA’s previous predictions on this front – again, the basic implication that something has changed radically since 2008 isn’t true. CERA has been predicting that there will be oil for a very long time. One thing that might be worth doing is examining how well CERA has predicted events in the past. Are they a reliable source?

What you will find is that CERA’s record of predictions is fairly abysmal, and that they are one of a very small number of energy analysts that predict smooth sailing on the energy front for the most part. One of the important parts of doing an essay like this is simply to evaluate your sources – and CERA is ostensibly credible. I don’t think it is unreasonable that Krauss quotes them. What is problematic, however, is that Krauss effectively quotes only them.

Now Krauss is at least nominally a journalist, and as you may know, journalistic and expository arguments involve showing both sides of an issue. So let’s look through the article for those two sides. IHS CERA is one that agrees with Krauss’s premise that in fact, there will be fuel. So let’s look for the people who don’t agree in the article, who provide some measure of balance. Ooops, it turns out there aren’t any. That would be a big mistake on Krauss’s part.

The article cites oil company executives and IHS CERA repeatedly. There is no representation of any evidence of viewpoint either to the contrary, or taken from any source that doesn’t make money by its predictions. The only exception to this is a brief, decontextualized reference to the recent IEA report, which glosses over the IEA’s affirmation of a peak of traditional crude oil.

Also, look at the article to see how often the author makes the assumption that things that haven’t happened yet will happen. For example, when he talks about Iraq, he observes “production could mushroom to 12 million barrels a day by the end of the decade – well above what Saudi Arabia produces today.” It could. It could not, and given that predictions that were made early in the Iraq war for near-term production turned out to be completely inaccurate, perhaps we should be cautious about assuming that this will be the case. Krauss makes no argument about *why* we should assume that Iraqi production will rise so high. But his claims about Iraq are less objectionable than those made in many places – here Krauss is more cautious than he is about most other sources, where he tends to prefer the most optimistic assumptions.

It is honestly difficult for people to sort through the range of projections out there for energy supplies, and this is an entirely reasonable thing to have difficulty with, particularly if you are not an expert. Krauss must, in fact, do one of two things. The first is select one set of analyses out there, and make a credible case for accepting these figures as accurate. The second possibility is to explore the range of possible predictions, offering contributions from people who advocate for both of these. Krauss, unfortunately, has done neither of these things. Instead, he’s accepted one set of predictions without making any case whatsoever for choosing them or even acknowledging that there are other scenarios and predictions by other energy experts.

Young writers often struggle, as I said, with the perception that acknowleding the other “side” of an argument weakens their own argument. This is, in fact, a misperception – the strongest arguments are actually those in which a “side” acknowledges the disagreement and then responds to the main thrust of the argument made in opposition to their position. Krauss seems to have skipped this lesson – normally not only standard in journalism, but often taken to excess.

It is rare that you’ll see a newspaper article even about how cute cock-a-poos are without some dissenting voice cited, due to the habit of providing journalistic balance. In areas where there is a clear difference between the quality of the arguments, this can be taken to ridiculous lengths – witness the habit of articles on climate change citing discredited climate deniers for the merits of “objectivity” even when these are not true opposing arguments (ie, they aren’t generally legitimate scientific arguments) made by scientists of equal credibility. There are many people who have argued that the quality of journalism sometimes suffers from a pathological adherence to the principle of balance. Clearly, Krauss does not suffer from that particular pathology, but since the situation in regards to oil is rather different than that in climate change – there are reputable people who argue that we are near a peak and reputable ones who argue we are not, there is no reasonable argument in favor of not including some measure of balance.

Krauss’s failure to provide even the basic format of objectivity, or grounds for accepting the most optimistic of figures is hard to understand. He is an experienced journalist, so it beggars the imagination to conceive that he is unfamiliar with this standard. He’s not a college student new to the concept of writing who thinks that strident reassertion of his premise and one-sided support is sufficient evidence. Again, I think we must attribute this to Krauss’s difficulty deciding what kind of article he’s writing – he simply hasn’t made up his mind whether he’s writing an expository analysis of our energy situation, which would require the former, or an op-ed piece. This is one of the reasons that one hopes for good support for writers – an editor or a comp teacher or even a 7th grade English teacher would have pointed gently out to Krauss that he’s having a little trouble with the appropriate forms of support for his work, and sent him back to working on it. Apparently none of these was available.

Consider another paragraph that again focuses on US production, and makes claims that are not only unsupportable, but patently ridiculous:

Not surprisingly, the back-to-the-future world of oil and gas begins in the United States, still the biggest economy and the driver of energy markets since World War II.

For the last two decades, the United States has produced less oil each year and been increasingly dependent on imports than the year before. As recently as a decade ago, most experts predicted that the country had only 25 years of gas reserves, and that it would need to import at least half of its needs in the future.

Today the country has reversed both trends, chiefly because of new drilling techniques that have opened world-class oil and gas resources. In 2009, domestic production began to reverse its annual decline for the first time since 1991. The Energy Department expects domestic supplies to grow through 2035, absent a significant decline in oil prices.

Read this carefully. He claims that the US has “reversed” its decline – that is, the decline in production that began almost 40 years ago has been entirely reversed? Wow, that’s pretty impressive. So we’re now on the upswing again, right? The thing is, writers sometimes assume that no one will do their own research on people’s claims, but that’s not a wise or safe assumption. What Krauss is basing this on is single year increase – to reverse a 40 year trend? And in fact, it hasn’t been reversed at all – we’re still down over 35% from the original peak. The EIA projects that in fact, this increase will continue until ummm..2010 (ie, now) when it will pretty much reverse again. Here Krauss either doesn’t know what “reverse” means or he’s being intentionally misleading. But remember, good writers assume good faith in the people they write about. So we’re going to try really hard to assume that Krauss means what he says.

The problem with that is that we’re left with the conclusion, doing so, that the only person who could believe all these impossible things before breakfast must be, to put it in less than wholly scholarly but accurate terms, dumber than dirt. This is a useful illustration for the young writer, because you never, ever want someone who is analyzing your work to be caught in the dilemma of trying to figure out whether they should call the author an idiot, an ignoramus or a liar. This is a situation to be entirely and devoutly avoided – so you should do a better job of providing supporting evidence than Krauss has done here, because he’s left the reader on precisely the horns of that dilemma. This is an unpleasant situation for both reader and the writer who receives the critique, and the best way of avoiding it is to make claims your evidence can actually support.

If you ever find yourself in the situation of being unable to plausibly attribute a mistake to honest belief or minor error, however, it is useful to know what to say. One cannot call a fellow writer a moron, an ignorant fool who doesn’t do his homework or a liar in many forms of publication – that would be extraordinarily impolite and inappropriate. If you are writing for a blog or another genre that would permit this, you can, of course, say whatever you want, but we should not assume that is the case.

Therefor, my readers, the proper way of reconciling this many errors and misrepresentations here is to state that the author is confused. After all, severe confusion is a state that any of us can experience without stigma, due, perhaps to a small stroke, an emotional trauma or an excess of affection for Jim Beam. This is not a value judgement, and while you would think that one’s editors at the New York Times would probably prefer not to print the writings of the confused, it is possible that they too were suffering from a related form of confusion. It is, nearly the holiday season and who could pass judgement on writers and editors who indulge a bit too much in holiday cheer?

The article ends with a strong supporting quote. This can be a fine way to end a piece of persuasive writing. A rousing statement from an expert can be an excellent way to wind up a piece of writing, particularly one that so desperately needs to come to an end, because the writer has filled it with poor reasoning and evidence that does not mean what the author thinks it does. Krauss quotes a banker here, which is an interesting choice – I would generally suggest that the best choice for a quote would be someone with credentials in the field, but perhaps Krauss couldn’t find anyone appropriate. This is one of those cases where good basic research skills, say, the application of “google” to keywords would be an excellent aid to his work, allowing him to find someone who is an actual expert:

Mr. Morse said the demand side of the equation also helped. He noted that American demand for gasoline appeared to have peaked in 2007 and could decline by 15 to 20 percent by 2020 because of increasingly efficient cars and a federal mandate requiring that renewable fuels, like ethanol, blended into transportation fuels must increase to 36 billion gallons in 2022, from nine billion gallons in 2008.

“When you add it up,” Mr. Morse noted, “you get something that very closely approximates energy independence.”

Here we have one of those “we don’t seem to be using words in the way they commonly are used” problems – the same trouble we had with the word “reversed.” Energy Independence generally means that we don’t rely on imported fuels. But the US has never reversed the trend of relying heavily on imports – we have increased imports by more than 300% since the US oil peak, and in 2009, even with the recession and the slight increase in US production, and biofuels imported more than 11 billion barrels of oil. With the IEA’s predictions of increased demand, there’s no way that those numbers add up to anything like energy independence.

It is perhaps, then, a good thing that Krauss ended with this quote, since any comment he made would likely again bring us back to our prior dilemma about how to politely articulate the problems of the article. What we must ask of this or any other piece of writing, however, is has it proved its thesis? Krauss set up a distinction between “old think” which he expressed as “oil, coal and gas are finite resources subject to oil peaks” and “new think” in which he has said “there’s a lot of possible oil out there.” The problem is that even if the possibilities are all real, and even if all of this is true – both things that Krauss has certainly not proven, he hasn’t answered the question. The “old think” represented by Simmons and such actually happens to be the real state of geophysics. We know for a fact that oil will reach a peak and decline – period, because we’ve seen it happen. We know for fact that oil, coal and natural gas are finite resources.

And in the end, that is the greatest weakness of this argument – Krauss might have tried to make an intelligent and credible argument that the *timing* of these peaks and issues of finite resources has been changed, but he instead chose to shoot for something that he couldn’t support. There’s no evidence in anything Krauss presents that the original point has changed.

What he’s done is provide a lot of obfuscatory detail, projections, quotations and other things all of which add up to “there might be fuel.” None of them add up to an answer to the problem of finite resources, and none of them are sufficient to support his basic claim that there *will be* fuel. Moreover, the muddle in the middle means that the reader is forced to ask why this writer can’t actually connect the dots. It is less than civil to speculate on these reasons – and on why the editors of the paper in question permitted such a muddle – but at the same time, those questions cannot but be raised in the mind of any conscious reader. My own hope is that all of this can be attributed simply to an excess of holiday happiness and perhaps Krauss’s goodhearted desire to provide a cautionary example for other writers who have not yet achieved his stature. For this, we are grateful.

When writing an essay about oil or any other subject, then, you will wish to avoid the errors made here. First, you will want to do high quality research, to evaluate your thesis statement and make sure that your own evidence supports it. You will want to be clear about both what kind of essay you are writing and why you are writing it, and probably will wish to avoid the obfuscatory style, since it immediately turns matters away from the subject and towards the larger question “what is the author trying to hide?” In the same way, you will wish to avoid making the same weak and implausible arguments over and over again in ways that require the reader to ask whether you are being intentionally obtuse or intellectually deceptive, since neither is flattering to the writer, and both again, shift one’s primary attention away from the subject at hand. You will wish to provide a balanced analysis if you are engaged in exposition, and use good research skills and objective data. If the data is uncertain, you will have to make choices, and explain why you have made them and what justifies them, or present a balanced case.

I have no doubt that given my readers’ native intelligence and the cautionary example presented here, they will provide fine expository and persuasive material when they are called upon to contribute to the discourse on energy and the environment. After all, you could hardly do worse.

Amen.

In the tiniest of quibbles, I would perhaps have added a few touches, for example, the less cheery reasons behind fracking and horizontal drilling and the implications of the word HOUSTON right under the byline, but over all I am in almost total agreement with Astyk.

Does my endorsement of Astyk’s analysis mean anything? I hope you’re wondering, because you should be asking, What’s HER authority?

I’m well read on the subject of peak oil, but I’m a total amateur, not nearly as experienced as Astyk. However, like Astyk, I’m a college composition instructor, a formidable one if I say so myself. I do however have a Phi Beta Kappa key, a fellowship for graduate study in English, and the respect of the faculty and students at my college. In fact, I’ve had a place on every English department hiring committee for the last fifteen years. Better yet, I’ve had students thank me for flunking them.***

Back to the matter of peak oil, my own post of November 19, 2010,
“Slow News: Peaked Oil”
is related to the Krauss-Astyk discssion in that the International Energy Agency, a policy group set up after the oil crisis of 1973 announced that oil peaked in 2006. This is hardly some radical eco-doomer group. In fact, the IEA publicly denied peak oil right up until a few days ago.

Of course, some people had long suspected the folks there, or at least some of them, knew peak oil was real. For example, that’s the thrust of “How a 22-year-old Student Uncovered Peak Oil Fraud” published back in March 2010 by Ecologist.

Of course, Sharon Astyk and folks like me are probably all wrong. Who knows more about the fossil fuel situation than the folks in Houston?

No, wait, didn’t the IEA used to say peak oil wasn’t real? My, my. Looks like you may have to do some research and critical thinking. That’s the real test, now isn’t it?

Cassandra

*** If you naively accepted what I said as true, you just flunked Internet Research 101. Indeed, the information happens to be true–or so I say–but I gave you no specifics, no means to cross-reference or validate my statements.

Thanksgiving Preparations

23 November 2010

Thanksgiving preparations aren’t all about cooking and decorating. To me, having good conversation is the key element to a successful sit-down dinner. A good many of my usual topics are recipes for T’day fistfights, so I was glad when I ran across Thaler’s Question at Edge.org.

I’ve already sent the link to most of the people in my address book, but I thought I’d post it here along with the lines I included in my email.

If you can’t find something here to spark a good Thanksgiving conversation, you ain’t tryin’ hard.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Cassandra

Oh, yes, and just not be sound too cheerful, here’s a Thanksgiving video.

Corporations: Making the Most of Bad Times

22 November 2010

I usually don’t copy and paste entire articles. I will this time for several reasons. First, genetically modified foods frighten me for several reasons, not the least of which is their tiny but real potential for running amok and destroying life on earth, but that’s a topic for another post. Other reasons ares pertinent here. This article shows that some big hitters look to be as convinced as I am that we’re going to be short of food because of soil degradation, overpopulation, water shortages, warming, or some combination of all of those. It also shows that they’ve got the clout to bully their way into profiting off that situation.

The original appears on the Mother Earth News website here.

‘Climate-Ready’ Crop Patents Threaten Biodiversity
11/10/2010 9:19:16 AM

By Anna Archibald
Tags: biodiversity, agriculture, crop patents

The ETC Group has identified over 1,663 patent documents that have been filed by some of the leading seed and agrochemical corporations, claiming “climate-ready” crops as the future of the world’s food supply — what some are calling “biopiracy.”

These patents, which are in violation of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Seed Treaty, have raised concern from the Convention on Biological Diversity and FAO that these corporations may be attempting to monopolize the world’s plant biomass. It also raises concern about the future of the world’s food supply.

Rapeseed crop

These patents claim environmental stress tolerance in plants — which includes drought, heat, flood, cold and salt tolerance — through climate-ready crop genes. If corporations are allowed to claim ownership, not only would major crops contain engineered gene sequences owned by one major corporation, so would the processed food and feed products that come from that crop.

The group at the United Nations’ Convention on Biodiversity in Nagoya, Japan, said the patents could become one of the “broadest and most dangerous patent claims in history.”

Over two-thirds of these patents have been filed by only three companies: DuPont, BASF and Monsanto. And only 10 percent of the total patents are from public sector researchers. Many of the companies involved have placed pressures on governments to facilitate the use of these untested crop genes.

In an attempt to deter a negative outlook on genetically modified crops and to convince governments of their “legitimacy,” these corporations have donated a few of these crop genes to farmers in South Africa.

“In exchange for untested technologies, South governments are being pressured to surrender national sovereignty over intellectual property, biomass, and food,” Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group said in the report.

DuPont, BASF and Monsanto–remember those names. And don’t forget to add ADM, another heavy hitter.

This’ll be a good day for me to finally start reading James Lieber’s Rats in the Grain: The Dirty Tricks and Trials of Archer Daniels Midland, the Supermarket to the World .

Cassandra

The Bottom Line Heats up on Climate Change

20 November 2010

Years ago, some businesses, such as insurance companies, quietly started working into their business plans the possible ramifications of climate change, but another group of businesspeople is openly avowing global warming and announcing this to their customers. What group? Nursery owners, the people who sell outdoor plants to the public.

Here’s an explanation from Raintree Nursery, which sells “Fruits, nuts, berries and unusual edible plants for the American backyard fruit grower!”:

Note of Explaination [sic] from Raintree Nursery: Every fifteen years the USDA puts out a new Hardiness Zone Map. In 2005 a new map was due out however it has not yet been published. The Arbor Day Foundation, a non-profit organization used the same weather data that the USDA uses to make their maps and made a new Hardiness Zone Map. They also made another map that shows the differences in zones over the past 15 years. You will notice that much of the nation has gotten one zone warmer. While this is good in a limited sense because some people can now grow plants in areas that were previously too cold, it is alarming as further evidence that global warming is a real and significant phenomenon.

My favorite map is the one on the Arbor Day Foundation site itself. Click Play and watch the 1990 map morph to the 2006 map. The menu on the left lets people download high resolution versions of this and a couple of other maps, including one for Alaska and Hawaii.

I found the morphing map fascinating and more than a little scary. A long-time gardener, I’ve noted the earlier arrival of spring as the years passed. Right now, it means I get to plant tomatoes earlier and still have a surviving hot pepper that I take in from the patio each night. However, after another few more USDA map cycles pass, it may mean my area will struggle to host cactus.

But their “explaination” reveals the Raintree Nursery Folks to be warmists, now doesn’t it? Why would you want to believe them or the USDA or climate scientists? If you know global warming is a hoax, show your faith with your choice of plants. It’s your garden. Buy a couple of zones colder than that nefarious USDA map suggests. You may well get away with it–once in a while; climate is not weather. Besides, you’ll also be supporting free enterprise. Nursery owners across the country will love you if you have to buy replacements.

Cassandra

Movie Reviews: Cool It

20 November 2010

Eric Hayden’s non-review of Bjorn Lomborg’s Cool it, is well worth a read. Rather than rendering an opinion or critique of the movie, Hayden presents summaries and links to reviews and related articles in a variety of sources ranging from the conservative National Review to environmentalist Grist.

“Debating the Climate Change Proposals In ‘Cool It'”

Happy reading!

Cassandra

Slow News: Peaked Oil

19 November 2010

The UK’s Investment and Business News web site carried an article on peak oil back in March 2010. It’s an overview sort of story, meant for those who are unfamiliar with the term. Here’s the first paragraph:

Peak oil is meant to describe that future time when the supply of oil goes into permanent decline. It’s the date some fear; others dismiss it, saying it’s a very long way off indeed. But both sides of the peak oil debate agree on one thing. The day it arrives will be a bleak day. And now a taskforce has claimed that peak oil is less than ten years away, and could even descend upon us during the lifetime of the current government. Is it time to panic?

Yesterday, a policy advisory organization of which the US is a founding member came out with this announcement: “International Energy Agency Says ‘Peak Oil’ Began in 2006”

I’m not particularly panicked by the announcement since this’s hardly unexpected, but I am, while unsurprised, more than a little depressed by the lack of coverage in the United States media.

That UK site immediately announced “Peak Oil Has Already Arrived”.

Well, just a few hours later another story emerged, this time from the International Energy Agency, which said we have in fact already passed peak oil; that global oil output peaked in 2006. It said that the onset of global recession, leading to a fall in demand, was the only reason why oil did not carry on rising once it passed $140 back in the summer of 2008.

That’ll change though. A little global economic collapse ain’t gonna stop the world from guzzling. The IEA, that 28 nation intergovernmental policy organization, also said this on November 12:

Global oil demand growth will slow in 2011 after a brief accelerated burst at the end of this year. “Across the board in the OECD, we’ve seen stronger demand. The thing is we think that these upwards revisions are transient”, said David Fyfe, head of the IEA’s oil industry and markets division. Overall, global oil demand will still be higher next year at 88.51 million barrels per day (bpd) compared with 87.32 million bpd this year. [emphasis added]

Meanwhile, searching for US coverage of all this, I found that only the American military seems to be concerned. Energy Summary in their Joint Operating Environment report put out way back in February of 2010 said this:

To generate the energy required worldwide by the 2030s would require us to find an additional 1.4 MBD. . . . By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD ” (29).

Meanwhile, as our military frets, the American press puts out little tidbits like this Nov. 15, 2010, Detroit Free Press blog entry: titled “Ford’s Heavy-duty Truck Sales Surge.”

Now why do I continue to think we’re doomed? Maybe I should buy a new truck to cheer myself up. It’s the American way.

Cassandra

“Uneven and Evolving”

11 November 2010

Just when I think the ignorant-and-proud-of-it, anti-science bent so evident in the US can’t become any more egregious, it does.

Kevin Gosztola summarizes and comments on some of the latest manifestations in “Republican Plan for Climate Change: ‘God Will Save Us.’”

If we are to believe his words, John Shimkus (R-IL), like many Americans, shows little grasp of even the basic situation. For example, his theological and/or anthropocentric comment that “Man will not destroy this Earth” is true enough. What climate scientist ever claimed Man would destroy the Earth? I’ve certainly never heard such a claim.

As far as I can tell, climate change or no climate change, the planet will be fine, thank you very much. Whether or not large mammals–including man–will survive is another matter. In fact, climate change is only one element of our predations. If one examines the status of topsoil and water, it becomes clear that man is already doing a fine job of endangering if not outright destroying his own niche and the niches of other mammals. Given these incontrovertible facts, it strikes me that man has poorly exercised God’s gift of free will and God has shown little interest in protecting us from our own lack of ability to be good stewards of the planet.

More subtle than the evangelical Shimkus, climate skeptic Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) uses American ignorance of the scientific scholarship to his advantage. He warns, “Global warming science is uneven and evolving.” The naive and ignorant get a two-fer here. Science isn’t uniform, as it should be according to either/or thinkers. Strike one. And it evolves. Strike two.

I have to give Barton credit. That line is a fine example of misleading with a truthful, inflammatory statement. Of course, science is uneven and evolving. That’s the way science works.

Cassandra

Olbermann, Part 2

6 November 2010

As the facts emerge, the Olbermann suspension begins to have a sort of logic. Making life miserable for unwanted employees is becoming an art form in America today.

“UPDATED: Before Bush Donor Takeover of MSNBC, Network Selectively Applies Rules to Suspend Olbermann”

Not all conspiracy theories are fantasies.

Cassandra